linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080415130240.1b9b7662.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:02:40 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	hch@...radead.org, bunk@...nel.org, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	miklos@...redi.hu, me@...copeland.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] OMFS filesystem version 3

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:53:30 +0100
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > You can continue to ignore my logic, but that won't go unnoticed.
> > 
> > Just as a thought exercise: should we merge a small and well-written
> > driver which has zero users?
> 
> We've previously merged ones that fit this category and have one user.

Probably incorrectly.

> If
> the driver doesn't disrupt core code and is useful to help other people
> write drivers then I think we should. It may also get more users as a
> result.

Maybe.

> This is a free software project not a business enterprise.

And the same principles apply, don't they?  We seek to minimise overhead
and to use our kernel development hours as effectively as we can.

This is particularly important when person A is thrusting additional work
onto persons B, C, and D.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/